If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Cross-linguistic Morpheme Analysis

I wonder if the best way to indicate morphemes is by color. That way you could demonstrate how a morpheme influences other parts of the sentence -- what we Americans call "agreement" but which, I think, is also called "concordance"

Re: Cross-linguistic Morpheme Analysis

This is an interesting example!
I think "-d-" has a meaning in this word. Doesn't it mean "in the past" actually? If it has a meaning, isn't it a morpheme? I understand that a morpheme is a smallest possible part of an utterance that carries some meaning. So I think it's a morpheme... Maybe not an affix though...

***

I asked some questions about these things on a Polish forum dedicated to linguistics. I got quite a few answers. None of them is authoritative and none of them is comprehensive but they have some new points. Before I report it here, I'd like to know if you're interested. It seems to require some effort to summarize them so I don't want to do it if there's no point in it.

Re: Cross-linguistic Morpheme Analysis

I'm interested.

Speaking of a Polish forum, I can't resist any longer. I must say that the Polish people that I have know are some of the smartest people I know of. It weird because here in the USA, since Poles were some of the later immigrants, there are all kinds of Polish jokes.

I was sitting at a concert with a Polish friend of mine (one of those that I would qualify as being so smart). Well, I though I would be smart, and when the orchestra was tuning up I thought I would make a joke by saying that I always wondered what that first piece they played was (meaning the tuning process, you know, starting with the oboe on a "A"). Well this Polish friend of mine immediately answered, "That's the Polish national anthem."

Re: Cross-linguistic Morpheme Analysis

Originally Posted by birdeen's call

This is an interesting example!
I think &quot;-d-&quot; has a meaning in this word. Doesn't it mean &quot;in the past&quot; actually? Exactly! That marks the difference between the past root and the future root of the verb:

-khor (future, present) -khor + d (past)

If it has a meaning, isn't it a morpheme? I understand that a morpheme is a smallest possible part of an utterance that carries some meaning. So I think it's a morpheme... Maybe not an affix though...

An affix belongs to the category of deviational morphemes. So, in practice, an affix is a morpheme. However, apart from the necessary condition you (and Frank in one of his posts) mentioned, there's also another very important condition: a morpheme should be semantically valuable. The 'd', in my opinion, is meaningless, if it's used in isolation. Furthermore, it's occurrence depends on phonological matters:

-bor + d + an (to take)-aras + t + an (to embellish)

***

I asked some questions about these things on a Polish forum dedicated to linguistics. I got quite a few answers. None of them is authoritative and none of them is comprehensive but they have some new points. Before I report it here, I'd like to know if you're interested. It seems to require some effort to summarize them so I don't want to do it if there's no point in it.

There will be surly a point in doing that, but if it's too long and time-consuming and may make you tired, I wouldn't insist.